Allen's racism would never have come up if he hadn't used a racist epithet recently. Allen's defense was that he was just babbling. It makes sense to examine Allen's previous actions and words to see if his past supports his defense.

It actively doesn't. Instead, we have a man with a long history of making ugly, racist remarks.

And for those of you who think his racism was acceptable 30 years ago--are you out of your mind? He was in LA in the '70s for chrissakes. No, we really didn't talk like that in California in the 70s--Allen's virulent racism was not a matter of course. In this way, he differs from Robert Byrd who really did grow up in a milieu where racism was "normal". Allen's ugly racism in California in the '70s would have stuck out like a sore thumb and apparently did.

Does it still matter? Yes, because he's still using racial epithets while claiming not to. Also, the stuffing of a dead deer head into some poor family's mailbox because they had a skin color Allen didn't like goes well beyond using the wrong word. And, no, I never did anything like that in college. I don't know anyone who did.

I'm not saying Allen should be prosecuted for his ugly, ancient misdeed, but I see no reason why the guy should have the privilege of holding elected office. Surely, there are less disturbed people who can handle the Senate. ANd, yeah, I think we have the right to know about someone's earlier pathological behavior. His long-standing willingness to treat people with darker skin than he as less than human is someone I wouldn't trust to vote in a rational, humane manner.

I'm not being naive. I was in a California high school at the time--one with a fair amount of racial tension. Allen's behavior has a crassness that would have been considered uncool, among other things. SoCal is not a southern state--the Confederacy, indeed the Civil War in general, doesn't have much weight out here.

Palos Verde is a posh area--you'd have had voluntary racial segregation socially--but jokes about beating up blacks? No. Overt racism in California is considered somewhat lower class, frankly--a sign of ignorance--though, once again, more subtle things did and do occur.

Thank you for hitting it on the head.

A Google shows that assumptions were made about Kerry's SATs, but no one seems to know them.

As for Bush's brains, I think it's less about his lack of intelligence and more about an inability to consider other viewpoints. He seems to have a personality disorder. I mean, if you want to convince people of the virtues of western democracy you don't kill thousands of them. It's real simple, but Bush and co. lack the most basic ability to see things from a different point of view.

Right now, it feels like the GOP is totally imploding--as if they can't conceive of losing--the level of hysteria and attacks seems to go beyond political expediency. I suppose it's that they got their way for six years. And FAILED. Big time.

No wonder they're looking to scapegoat Democrats somehow, anyhow.

First, Andrea Dworkin's works being on the syllabus of some feminist studies courses doesn't mean that Dworkin is particularly lauded by the feminist movement--it means that her ideas are discussed. Period. How she's dealt with in any given course depends on the instructor. She is one point on a spectrum. Phyllis Schafly is another. Dworkin's inconsistencies were well known among feminists--nothing like a separatist who lives with a guy for decades. Dworkin and her ideas were openly discussed *and* criticized.

Which is all that's happening to Flanagan here. Even more than Dworkin, Flanagan's personal life is at odds with her pronouncements. Not only did kvetch about mommies with nannies while having a nanny, she's preached about traditional marriage (no date night for *you*!) though she, herself, has been married three times (www.glamatron.com) Like Dworkin, her arguments, such as they are, fall short when examined. Indeed, one of Flanagan's biggest weaknesses as a writer is that her essays never add up to much. With the big nannies-are-exploited article in the Atlantic, the practical conclusion seemed to be pay your nanny's Social Security. Like don't break the law. Well, duh.

It does sound like the P.L. Travers article was the final straw in Flanagan's New Yorker career. Her other articles were lightly researched and insubstantial--families go to big Hawaiian resorts; private-school teachers get lavish gifts; gee, what a lot of baby stuff there is--the Traver's article seemed to be her big stab at something sort of serious and *whoosh* the woman couldn't give credit where credit was due. That it was sort of nothing article--I read it and am interested in Travers and I *still* can't remember much about it--gives it's a certain ironic comedy.

Or just a Jewish lesbian?

Which one was Lucille Ball? And what's that weird association between making babies and not making jokes? Hell, surviving modern motherhood demands a full-spectrum sense of humor. Ya start with the poo jokes (you're still hoping to work up to potty jokes), then the jokes-in-lieu-of-sex-and-sleep jokes, and when you're wide awake the meaning-of-life, what-happened-to-my-philosophy-major jokes.

Oh, but wait, we all know Hitchens never listens to anyone, so it sounds more like women haven't been laughing at his jokes lately. That darn war!